MundaneFolly 🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈

Okay, I've got no idea how to make a proper pinned (not great at committing to one either), but here goes! Hi! I'm Mundane, or Folly, or any other of other nicknames you want to make with my user! I only speak English, and I use He/Him pronouns! Have an excellent day!

@zombiesrus5 This belief hinges on many assumptions, and also disregards any of the points made in the original post, so I don't think we can have an effective or reasonable discussion past this point. Have a good rest of your day!

@Mundane_Folly With only two possible outcomes for Blue: 50% die or 100% live the minute Blue fails the more souls saved rely on a greater majority of Red pushers. Every additional 5% is 415m more people saved. The way to ensure more people survive is to press the guaranteed choice of Red.

Folks who are worried about as many people living as possible should remember that you only need a plurality (a 50% or higher majority) in order to have a 100% survival rate with blue. You need unanimous agreement (100%) for everyone to survive when choosing red. (1/6)

@virologyanon I have to assume that this is a reply to your own tweet because...that's what you did? I don't generally like assuming someone's a bot, but this reads a lot like a bot misread it's own reply as a prompt.

@Mundane_Folly The fact you're calling the 3rd world irrational and encouraging genocide is itself disgusting and racist

@mokmuud Thanks for an example of the opposite of how the hypothetical is both explained and meant to be understood! Hope that helps!

@Mundane_Folly No. Choosing blue introduces death. Choosing red doesn't inherently risk anything.

@MikeHall581513 I'm fine with people who want to vote red or blue, I just want people to represent the situation accurately. Both are valid answers depending on your logical framework (self survival vs the survival of the many).

@MikeHall581513 Well, I'd hope they know! That's what choosing to vote red does, it introduces the possibility of blue voters dying. I'm not pretending that red voters don't know that, I'm commenting on the fact that many red voters try to frame choosing red as objectively correct when it's not.

@KiranaSakuraX This is the exact kind of rhetoric I was complaining about in the original post. Given that you have (assumedly) read the post in order to reply to it, it appears clear we can't have a meaningful discussion here. Have a good rest of your day!

@Mundane_Folly It is objectively rational to not push a suicide button.

@Kris_with_the_K I hate to use the image method to reply to this, but my statement wouldn'tve fit into the character limit otherwise. I'd also like to preface this with pointing out that I do not believe there is an objectively correct answer to this dilemma.

@Mundane_Folly Blue has an incorrect theory of mind about red. Red considers a blue victory to be doubtful if not impossible and is choosing to mitigate a catastrophe rather than gamble everything on a perfect but uncertain best case scenario.

@ondrapxc As an additional aside, please do not assume I'm trying to say that red or blue are the "correct" answers, as that is the exact thing I was complaining about in the original post. Both are valid answers depending on your own framework (self survival vs collective survival).

@ondrapxc This is a misrepresentation, as pressing blue has no cost in the original hypothetical. Pressing red gives you guaranteed survival in exchange for introducing the chance of the deaths of every blue pusher if you have a majority. Pressing blue doesn't cause your own death.

@KiranaSakuraX This is the point I'm trying to make. There is no objectively correct choice between red and blue. If you don't care about the survival of the many and just want to ensure your own, that's a fine reason to choose red. Just don't say it's objectively rational.

@Mundane_Folly Lucky for me that iscnot onecof my worries, so I can safely push red.

@unmundig I appreciate the point you're trying to make (you can't compare unlike quantities with percentages) but the two percentages I mention are quite literally measuring the same thing; the percent of people who voted one button or another. No mention of probability whatsoever.

@Mundane_Folly Roll six dice, and get a point for each that shows 2 to 6. You are approximately 7 times more likely to get 100% of the points than 50% of the points. You can't just see 50% and 100% and compare them directly.

@DavidKastille Let's go over this in pieces. For starters, most polls (e.g. the original by Tim Urban) end with blue winning. Secondly, I'm not saying blue or red are the better choice, that's precisely the thing I'm complaining about in the original post. It depends on your logical framework.

But what are you chances of getting that plurality IRL? I think it's like 30%, meaning my red vote saves more lives (1) than a blue vote. You a a member of a collective, you are not *the* collective. In order for your decision to be both logical and ethical, your judgement of what other people will do *must* be a factor in your choice, else you're blindly adding to the pool of potential death.

@virologyanon I'm going to do you a kindness and not address the very gross implications of what you just said. Your reply does miss the point of the post itself, which is just trying to make the point that red isn't the "objectively rational" answer. Both depend on your own logical framework.

@Mundane_Folly You should remember that due to third world voting a majority of reds is guaranteed and you're deciding solely whether to suicide

@ArtTshi This seems to misunderstand what I'm saying. I do not condemn either side in my initial post, nor do I believe either are necessarily objectively wrong. Both are correct answers based on your own logical framework. I just don't like when people claim one is objectively right.

@Mundane_Folly it boils down to : do you think blue can win? if no, red is the only correct choice And if you're an adult: remember when the obvious candidate lost the election? (no taking sides here, happened to both) Well that happened in your educated country, the world on average is dumber

@zombiesrus5 This post is technically correct, but doesn't address what I'm saying. Reds are obviously more likely to survive if they push the button that guarantees their survival at the cost of others. My post is explaining that red isn't the option to ensure the most people survive overall

@Mundane_Folly There is 100% chance 50% or more people survive the death game. The odds of more people surviving favors the Red pushers than the Blue pushers.

@kb_french Again, this is a fine viewpoint to hold. You're prioritizing your guaranteed survival (for one reason or another) over the survival of the many. The original post isn't condemning red voters, it's trying to disassemble the misrepresentation of red as the only rational choice.

@Mundane_Folly I’m so doubtful about actually getting 50% agreement from strangers that I can’t coordinate with, that I am much more concerned with making sure I am available to help those who survive.

Regardless, I hope that we can have more nuanced discussions like this in the future. Moral dilemmas and thought experiments are very fun to talk about, and I love giving my brain something to chew on. Again, no hate to the person I quoted. Thank you for reading! (6/6)

People choosing the selfish option want to be seen as perfectly rational, and plenty even justify their choice by saying that blue button pushers "deserve to die" or are "picking the suicide button". This is inaccurate, but it says a lot about how people want to be seen. (5/6)